How open access is crucial to the future of science

Bolick, Josh; Emmett, Ada; Greenberg, Marc L.; Rosenblum, Brian; Peterson, A. Townsend

doi:10.1002/jwmg.21216

Cited by 8 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(31 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this funding model is similar to page fees, and is not the only way to pay for OA. Other funding models of OA include institutional subsidy, society subsidy, lifetime author subscriptions, university library support, or some combination of these (Bolick et al 2017).…”

Section: What Oa Is Notmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Access Principles and Practices Benefit Conservation

Alston¹

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open access is often contentious in the scientific community, but its implications for conservation are under-discussed or omitted entirely from scientific discourse. Access to literature is a key factor impeding implementation of conservation research, and many open access models and concepts that are little-known by most conservation researchers may facilitate implementation. Conservation professionals working outside academic institutions should have more access to research so that conservation is better supported by current science. In this perspective, I present elements missing from current discussions of open access and suggest potential pathways for journal publishers and researchers to make conservation publications more open. There are many promising avenues for open access to play a larger role in conservation research, including archiving pre-prints and post-prints, more permissive “green” open access policies, and increasing access to older articles. Collectively supporting open access practices will benefit our profession and the species we are working to protect.

show abstract

Section: What Oa Is Notmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Access Principles and Practices Benefit Conservation

Alston¹

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bolick et al () disagree with this, opining that “OA journals offer peer review that is solidly on par with that of society journals and commercial journals . .…”

Section: Oa Journals’ Inferior Publishing Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accordingly, publishing natural resources and environmental research in OA journals carries a greater risk of being incorrect, polluting science, making science's knowledge base unreliable, and threatening science as a productive enterprise. Bolick et al (2017) disagree with this, opining that "OA journals offer peer review that is solidly on par with that of society journals and commercial journals . .…”

Section: Oa Journals' Inferior Publishing Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, we would lose what Bolick et al (2017) campaign to attain. They want the current high quality version of JWM to be made available to practitioners in developing countries for free.…”

Section: Why Jwm Should Not Change Into An Oa Journalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The problem is with OA articles produced by OA journals, in great part because of OA journals’ inferior publishing standards. Bolick et al () rejected my recommendation, opining that open access journals maintain a standard of peer review equal to that of society journals, that open access is crucial to the future of science, and that research societies should consider changing their society journals into OA journals, in particular JWM becoming an OA journal. My analyses demonstrate that their opinions are unsound, and in particular that keeping and strengthening society journals is best for advancing science everywhere, including in developing countries.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

How open access is crucial to the future of science: A reply

Romesburg

2017

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I explained how publishing wildlife research in open access (OA) journals like PLOS ONE makes wildlife science less reliable. Subsequently, several researchers rejected my explanation, opining that OA journals have top publishing standards and are crucial for the future of wildlife science because researchers in developing countries can access them for free, better enabling them to contribute. Consequently, some opined that research societies should consider remaking their society journals into OA journals, in particular the Journal of Wildlife Management (JWM) sponsored by The Wildlife Society (TWS) becoming an OA journal. In this, my response to them, I show that their opinions are misguided and explain 1) how OA journals unquestionably have inferior publishing standards; 2) why OA is not crucial to the future of wildlife science; 3) why wildlife science's investing its limited resources in certain areas other than OA publishing is crucial to its future; 4) why changing JWM into an OA journal would quite possibly result in losing both TWS and JWM as we know them, leaving us with much less effective replacements; 5) how universities push for open access not because OA leads to better science (it does not) but because OA saves university libraries money, serves egalitarian attitudes among faculty and students, and provides graduate students with the quickest and easiest way of getting their articles into print; and 6) how the goal of growing science in developing countries requires growing the countries’ economies as prerequisite to growing their science, irrespective of the availability of OA articles. As well, these ideas hold beyond wildlife science, including throughout the natural resources and environmental sciences. © 2017 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Closing the knowledge‐action gap in conservation with open science

Roche

Kerr

Rytwinski

et al. 2021

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The knowledge-action gap in conservation science and practice occurs when research outputs do not result in actions to protect or restore biodiversity. Among the diverse and complex reasons for this gap, three barriers are fundamental: knowledge is often unavailable to practitioners,to interpret, and/or difficult to use. Problems of availability, interpretability, and useability are solvable with open science practices. We consider the benefits and challenges of three open science practices for use by conservation scientists and practitioners. First, open access publishing makes the scientific literature available to all. Second, open materials (methods, data, code, and software) increase the transparency and (re)use potential of research findings. Third, open education resources allow conservation professionals (scientists and practitioners) to acquire the skills needed to make use of research outputs. The long-term adoption of open science practiceswould help researchers and practitioners achieve conservation goals more quickly and efficiently, in addition to reducing inequities in information sharing. However, short-term costs for individual researchers (insufficient institutional incentives to engage in open science and knowledge mobilization) remain a challenge to overcome. Finally, we caution against a passive approach to sharing that simply involves making information available. We advocate for a proactive stance towards transparency, communication, collaboration, and capacity building that involves seeking out and engaging with potential users to maximize the environmental and societal impact of conservation science.

show abstract

How open access is crucial to the future of science

Cited by 8 publications

References 16 publications

Open Access Principles and Practices Benefit Conservation

Open Access Principles and Practices Benefit Conservation

How open access is crucial to the future of science: A reply

Closing the knowledge‐action gap in conservation with open science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About